•^t^^^ 


^X  X\i.t  ^heolostQi  ^ 


% 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


% 


% 


Presented    by"^-^^-^.  S  \  C\<2/X^V  Vc7\W  O 


BV  210  .H75 

Hopkins,  Mark,  1802-1887. 

Prayer  and  the  prayer  gauge 


PRAYER, 


AND    THE 


PRAYER    GAUGE. 


BY 

Rev.  mark  HOPKINS,  D.D. 


NEW  YORK : 

DODD  &  MEAD,  PUBLISHERS, 

762    BROADWAY. 


PRAYER 


T3UT  for  the  invitation  of  several  pas- 
tors, and  of  others  whose  opinion  I 
respect,  and  whose  wishes  I  regard,  I 
should  not  have  thought  of  entering 
into  the  discussion  on  the  subject  of 
prayer  that  is  now  going  on.  I  come 
now  in  no  spirit  of  controversy.  My 
simple  wish  is  to  aid  candid  minds  on  a 
subject  of  vital  interest,  and  certainly  not 
without  its  difficulties. 

Let  us  then,  first,  look  at  the  subject 
itself;  and  afterward  at  the  special  diffi- 
culties, not  new,  but  made  prominent  at 
the  present  time. 

The  term  "  prayer,"  as  it  is  ordinarily 


P RA  YER,     AND 


used,  includes  worship — adoration,  praise, 
confession,  thanksgiving.  These  may  be 
acceptable  to  God,  and  useful  to  our- 
selves in  their  reflex  influence,  but  they, 
together  with  all  considerations  of  reflex 
influence,  are  to  be  excluded  from  the 
present  discussion.  I  propose,  as  we  are 
asked  to  do,  to  consider  prayer  solely  as 
petition,  and  petition  as  a  means  of  obtain- 
ing that  for  which  we  ask.  If  it  be  not 
that,  I  have  no  plea  to  make  for  it. 

In  prayer  regarded  as  petition,  we 
hope  for  some  change  that  would  not 
have  been  without  the  prayer.  We  find 
that  we  can  change  events  and  their 
issues  in  other  ways.  Despite  any  diffi- 
culties that  may  be  raised  about  the 
unchangeable  laws  of  nature,  or  the 
immutability  of  God,  we  all  know  that 
it    lies   with    us   to    use    means   that   will 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE, 


cause  events  and  their  issues  to  be  differ- 
ent from  what  they  would  have  been  if 
we  had  not  used  those  means.  If  not, 
there  is  an  end  to  all  rational  activity. 
The  only  question  is,  whether  prayer  is 
one  of  those  means  at  all ;  and  if  so,  to 
what  extent. 

To  decide  this,  we  naturally  inquire 
how  it  is  that  changes  are  produced.  If 
we  notice,  we  shall  observe  that  the 
changes  around  us  come  in  two  ways. 
They  come  either  by  what  we  call  im- 
mutable law,  or  by  the  action  of  free  will. 
Immutable  law  belongs  to  matter.  There, 
with  the  exception  of  a  miracle,  we  not 
only  acknowledge  that  it  is,  but  claim 
that  it  is.  The  law  of  matter,  called  the 
first  law  of  motion,  or  sometimes  the  law 
of  inertia,  that  is,  that  a  body  will  con- 
tinue  at    rest,    or   in    a   state  of  uniform 


8  PRAY  ER,    AND 

motion,  until  it  is  caused  to  change  its 
state  by  some  external  force,  is  an  im- 
mutable law.  If  I  lay  my  watch  on  the 
desk  before  me,  it  will  lie  there  forever 
unless  removed  by  some  external  force. 
If  this  and  other  laws  of  matter  were  not 
immutable,  there  would  be  no  basis  for 
physical  science.  Without  this,  experi- 
ence would  lose  its  value. 

Free-will,  on  the  other  hand,  belongs 
to  mind,  and  when  we  come  to  that,  we 
come  into  a  different  region.  In  matter, 
as  subject  to  law,  there  is  necessity,  and 
only  that.  There  is  no  room  for  an 
alternative.  The  stone  cannot  roll  half- 
way down  the  hill  and  then  turn  round 
and  roll  back.  But  in  freedom  there  is 
no  necessity.  The  very  term  precludes 
it.  There  is  room  for  an  alternative. 
Accordingly  science,  in  the  sense    of   the 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE.  g 


physicist,  can  never  come  into  this 
region.  The  phenomena  are  wholly  dif- 
ferent, and  I  must  beg  you  to  keep 
these  regions  distinct,  for  the  discussion 
will  turn  very  much  upon  the  relation  of 
one  of  them  to  the  other — the  relation  of 
free-will  to  physical  law. 

What  the  ultimate  relation  of  will  is 
to  what  we  call  immutable  law,  but 
which  we  know  only  as  uniformity  within 
a  limited  period,  we  do  not  now  stop  to 
inquire.  There  are  those,  and  I  am  of 
the  number,  who  believe  that  these  uni- 
formities of  nature,  called  laws,  may  be 
ultimately  resolved  into  will ;  but  for  the 
purpose  of  this  discussion  they  are  to  be 
accepted  as  uniformities,  as  given  quanti- 
ties, and,  except  by  miracle,  immuta- 
ble while  the  present  system  stands. 

Changes,    then,    may    be    wrought,    I 


10  P  RA  Y  ER,     A  N  D 

will  not  say  by  law,  for  I  cannot  conceive 
of  law  as  an  agent,  or  by  force,  which  is 
equally  an  abstraction,  but  by  some 
agent  possessing  force  and  acting  uni- 
formly. The  river  runs,  and  the  ice-berg 
floats  downward  from  the  pole  by  the 
law  of  gravitation.  On  the  other  hand, 
changes  are  produced  by  will.  The  will 
of  man  comes  between  these  laws  and 
their  results  as  they  would  be  without 
that  will.  Without  his  will  the  stream 
would  flow  on  uniformly.-  By  the  inter- 
position of  that  will  it  is  made  to  set 
back  and  pour  over  a  dam,  and  turn  his 
water-wheel.  He  stands  at  the  sluice- 
way, and  by  a  slight  movement  directs 
the  flood  at  his  will.  This  you  will  ob- 
serve he  does,  and  knows  that  he  can 
do,  through  the  very  immutability  of  the 
laws  of  gravitation  and  fluidity.     It  is  by 


THE    PR  A   YER     GA  UGE.  u 

this     only     that    he    halters    them,     and 
breaks  them   into    his    service.     Inflexible 
laws  in   their  relation   to  will  are   like  in- 
flexible   sticks  of  timber,  and    are  all  the 
more    serviceable     for    their    inflexibility 
provided  they  admit  of  a  varying  adjust 
ment   among   themselves.     This    they    do 
admit.     By  the  interposition    of  will,    in 
flexible  sticks  of  timber  may  be  arranged 
into    very     different    shapes,    and    in    the 
same  way  inflexible   laws    may  be  so    ad 
justed   among  themselves  as  to  work  out 
very    different  results. 

But,  in  speaking  of  the  inter-action 
of  will  with  fixed  law  in  producing 
changes  and  results,  we  have  need  to 
clear  the  ground  by  defining  our  terms. 
For  want  of  this  men  have  talked  and 
written  at  cross  purposes.  There  are 
three    terms    especially,    the    meaning   of 


12  P  RA  YE  R,    A  N  D 

which,  at  least  as  we  shall  use  them,  we 
need  to  fix.  These  are  nature,  or  natu- 
ral, supernatural  and  miraculous. 

And  first,  of  nature.  By  this  we 
mean  that  region  of  fixed  law  of  which 
I  have  spoken,  the  region  of  necessity, 
the  region  where  nothing  begins  to  be 
in  any  thing  that  is  not  caused  by  some 
thing  external  to  itself.  There  is  in  it 
no  power  of  originating  any  thing :  no 
choice,  no  will,  no  freedom.  This,  as  I 
have  said,  is  the  region  of  physical 
science. 

By  the  supernatural  we  mean,  not, 
as  some  say,  what  God  only  can  do ; 
nor,  as  others  say,  what  beings  superior 
to  man  only  can  do,  but  we  mean  just 
what  the  name  implies,  a  region  above 
nature.  We  mean  a  region  in  which 
action    can     be    originated,    a    region    of 


rilE    P  RA  YER     GA  UGE. 


13 


will,  of  choice,  of  personality,  one  from 
which  nature  can  be  looked  down  upon, 
and  comprehended  and  controlled.  This, 
of  course,  makes  the  actions  of  man 
supernatural  so  far  as  they  are  free. 
There  are  those  who  object  to  this,  but 
they  do  not  seem  to  see  that  it  is  only 
thus  that  we  can  find  a  distinction  in 
kind,  and  so  really  separate  the  natural 
from  the  supernatural,  and  the  super- 
natural from  the  miraculous.  When  I 
raise  this  book  I  overcome  a  law  of  na- 
ture, a  law  that  was  holding  it  down.  I 
do  what  nature  never  could  have  done, 
and  therefore,  as  originating  the  action, 
what  is  above  nature  or  supernatural. 
As  originating  in  free-will  that  act  is 
just  as  supernatural,  just  as  much  out 
of  and  beyond  any  power  of  nature,  as 
it  would  be  for  an  angel  to  descend  and 


14  PRAYER,    AND 

appear  on  this  platform.  That  would 
be  supernatural,  but  not  miraculous. 
Unless  we  make  a  miracle  merely  a 
wonder,  the  appearance  of  the  angels 
to   the   shepherds   was   not    a   miracle. 

What,  then,  would  be  miraculous? 
What  is  a  miracle  ?  In  the  Bible  the 
supernatural  and  the  miraculous  are  not 
carefully  distinguished.  Indeed,  the 
word  supernatural  is  not  in  the  Bible 
at  all.  The  two  are  grouped  as 
''signs,"  "wonders,"  and  miracles,"  but 
we  need  to  find  a  distinction  in  kind. 
In  itself  a  miracle  is  not  different  from 
any  other  event.  That  an  event  should 
become  a  miracle  requires  two  things : 
First,  there  must  be  laws  of  nature 
previously  established,  and  those  laws 
must  be  transcended.  In  the  begin- 
ning,   before     the     laws  of    nature    were 


THE    PR  A  YER     GA   U  G E. 


15 


established,  a  miracle  was  impossible. 
The  creation  of  the  world  was  not  a 
miracle.  And,  second,  the  laws  of  na- 
ture must  be  transcended  by  a  direct 
act  of  will.  If  I  toss  this  book  into 
the  air  it  will  fall  by  the  law  of  gravi- 
tation. That  is  natural.  If  I  suspend 
it  from  the  ceiling  by  a  cord,  I 
counteract  the  law  of  gravitation  by 
the  stronger  law  of  cohesion,  and  so 
change  the  result.  This  is  not  a  mir- 
acle, because  I  use  one  law  of  nature 
to  counteract  another.  It  is  all  natural, 
except  that  act  of  intervention  by  which 
the  counteraction  is  brought  about. 
That  is  supernatural,  but  not  miraculous. 
But  if  now  I  were  to  toss  the  book 
into  the  air,  and,  by  a  direct  act  of 
my  will,  with  no  means  intervening,  it 
were    to    remain    suspended,    that    would 


P  R  A  Y  E  R,     A  N  D 


be  a  miracle.  There  would  be  no  vio- 
lation or  suspension  of  any  law  of  na- 
ture, as  some  suppose  there  must  be,  in 
a  miracle.  Gravitation  would  act  as  be- 
fore, as  it  did  when  the  book  was 
suspended  by  a  cord,  but  would,  as 
in  that  case,  be  overcome  by  a  stronger 
force.  In  both  cases  there  is  an  inter- 
vention of  will.  The  difference  is,  that 
in  the  one  case  the  law  is  overcome 
by  a  stronger  law,  through  an  adjust- 
ment made  by  intelligence  and  will ; 
in  the  other  case  will  acts  directly.  A 
"^  miracle,  then,  will  be  a  physical  effect 
in  which  a  law  of  nature  is  overcome, 
or  the  elements  of 'nature  are  controlled 
by  a  direct  act  of  will.  This  reveals  a 
personal  power  above  nature,  which  a 
uniform  law,  that  is,  nature,  could  not 
do.     Such    was    the    feeding    of    the    five 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE. 


17 


thousand  by  Christ,  and  his  walking 
on  the  water.  According  to  this,  so 
far  as  the  dividing  of  the  Red  Sea 
was  due  to  the  east  wind,  it  was  not 
a  miracle.  It  was  a  wonder,  a  marvel 
like  the  effects  of  fire  and  of  tornadoes, 
which  are  such  that  but  for  the  evi- 
dence of  our  senses  we  could  not  be- 
lieve them.  It  was  supernatural,  and, 
under  the  circumstances,  as  signally  an 
interposition  of  God  as  if  it  had  been 
a   miracle,    but    that    it   was    not. 

But  is  it  possible  that  will  can  act 
thus?  The  physicist  says  no.  Why? 
For  no  other  reason  apparently  but  that 
his  own  will  cannot  do  it.  Certainly 
it  is  not  given  us  to  control  nature, 
except  through  her  laws.  We  conquer 
her  by  obeying  them.  But,  so  far  as 
we  can  see,  our  wills  must  have  direct 
2 


PRAYER,    AND 


power  over  some  of  the  matter  in  our 
bodies ;  and  as  the  essence  of  a  mir- 
acle consists  in  a  revelation  of  the  di- 
rect power  of  a  personal  will  as  a  force 
superior  in  the  control  of  matter  to  the 
laws  of  nature,  we  have  only  to  sup- 
pose the  will  of  God  to  have  a  relation 
to  nature,  like  that  of  our  wills  to  this 
matter  in  our  bodies,  and  the  power  of 
miracles  would  follow  of  course.  Who 
shall  say  that  this  is  not  so?  What 
do  we  know  of  the  relation  of  the  w411 
of  God    to    his    universe? 

With  the  views  now  stated  all  will 
not  agree.  I  give  them  as  my  own,  and 
pass  on  to  consider  how  it  is  that  we 
are  trained  up  from  the  first,  and  need 
to  abide  permanently,'  in  connection  with 
these  two  great  and  only  methods  of 
producing   changes — immutable   law,   and 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE. 


19 


will.  The  measure  of  a  man's  power  is 
his  ability  to  produce  changes.  How 
does  nature  teach  us  to  produce  them  ? 
From  our  earliest  recollection  our 
wants  have  been  supplied  and  our 
wishes  met  in  two  ways  ;  either  by  our 
own  exertions,  or  by  our  asking  others 
to  exert  themselves  for  us.  Of  these, 
dependence  on  a  person,  which  is  vir- 
tually asking,  comes  first,  and  was 
the  more  prominent  in  our  earlier 
years,  but  as  we  grew  up,  they  were 
inseparably  blended  in  our  training.  If 
our  parents  were  wise  they  did  not  do 
for  us  what  we  could  do  for  ourselves. 
They  knew  that  the  muscles  and  men- 
tal faculties  are  developed  only  as  they 
are  exercised,  and  for  our  sakes,  even 
though  we  asked  them,  they  refused  to 
help   us  when   we    could    help    ourselves. 


20  PRAYER,    AND 

That  was  the  principle,  or  should  have 
been,  never  to  help  us  so  as  to  encour- 
age indolence  or  inefficiency.  But  when 
we  could  not  help  ourselves,  when  the 
plaything  was  too  high,  or  the  stick 
too  heavy,  or  the  knot  too  hard,  and 
especially  in  falls  and  bruises  and  sick- 
ness, they  would  help  us  if  we  asked. 
If  we  were  hungry,  and  asked  for  bread, 
they  did  not  give  us  a  stone.  And  so, 
helping  ourselves,  and  getting  help  by 
asking-  it  —  sometimes  getting  it,  and 
sometimes  not,  we  grew  up,  our  wants 
being  supplied  in  these  two  methods. 
Can  any  thing  better  be  conceived  for 
the  training  of  the  whole  man  —  for 
awakening  intellect,  for  arousing  energy, 
for  calling  out  the  affections? 

Now  observe    that,    when    we    helped 
ourselves,     we     brought     about     changes 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE. 


21 


throui^h  the    fixed    laws    of    nature.     We 

were  trained  under  them.     We  wished  to 

be  warmed.     We  went  to  the  fire,  and  by 

a  fixed   law  of  nature,  we   were  warmed. 

We  wished  to  slide  down    hill,  and,  when 

we     had    made    the    adjustment,     by   an 

immutable    law,    the    sled     went.      Here, 

doing   our    part,  we   invariably   got  what 

we   wanted.     We   knew   we  should.     We 

got  it  ourselves,  and  we  thanked  nobody. 

We  were  in  the  region  of  invariable  and 

impersonal  law,    and  we  could  not  thank 

that.     But   when  we    asked,    all   this   was 

changed  ;    we   were  in  the  region  of  will, 

and     looked     for     the     changes     desired 

directly  or  indirectly  from  that.     We  did 

not  suppose  a  miracle  would  be  wrought, 

but   we    knew    our    parents  had    a  wider 

range  of  control  over  the  immutable  forces 

than  we  had,  and  we  hoped  for  aid  through 


22  PRAYER,    AND 

that.  We  did  not  appeal  to  "  physical 
energy,"  or  to  any  *'  equivalent  of  such 
energy,"  but  to  affection  and  will.  We 
could  never  be  sure  that  our  requests 
would  be  granted.  For  our  own  sakes 
some  of  them  ought  not  to  have  been  ; 
but,  if  they  were  granted,  there  was  room, 
and  a  call  for  gratitude  and  love.  So 
much  for  our  training  under  law  in  child- 
hood. 

But  nov/  we  have  reached  manhood. 
Parents  have  passed  away ;  but  the  laws 
of  nature  abide.  The  ground  and  process 
of  our  training  under  them  continue. 
As  we  become  more  acquainted  with  these 
laws  the  more  admirable  do  they  seem, 
and  the  training  under  them  becomes 
richer  in  its  fruits,  and  more  beneficent. 
And  is  the  other  great  side  and  element 
of   our   training    to    drop   entirely  away? 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE.  23 

Is  there  nothing  in  this  universe  that 
can  sustain  that  also,  and  make  it  more 
broad  and  more  blessed  ?  Here  comes 
the  man  of  science,  and  says :  "  No,  that 
is  all  passed  ;  you  are  a  man  now. 
Henceforth  only  law  remains  to  you.  If 
there  be  a  God,  as  perhaps  there  is,  he 
must  always  be  unknown.  He  is,  in  fact, 
unknowable.  His  plans  are  too  vast  ;  he 
is  too  high  to  regard  you  or  your  wishes." 
But  if  the  man  of  science  says  this,  not 
so  says  the  instinct  of  humanity  in 
the  hour  of  its  trouble.  Not  so  say 
'■'■  they  that  go  down  to  the  sea  in  ships 
when  they  mount  up  to  the  heaven  and 
go  down  again  to  the  depths,  and  are 
at  their  wits'  end.  Then  they  cry  unto 
the  Lord  in  their  trouble."  Not  so  says 
the  heart  of  the  mother  when  the  bal- 
ances tremble  between  the  life  and  death 


24 


PRAYER,    AND 


of  her  child.  If  the  man  of  science  says 
that,  not  so  says  the  Bible.  Speaking 
through  the  voice  of  Him  who  spoke 
as  never  man  spoke,  that  says,  ''  Ask, 
and  ye  shall  receive."  It  says,  "  Pray 
without  ceasing."  It  says,  "  Praying  al- 
ways with  all  prayer."  It  says,  ''  In  every 
thing,  by  prayer  and  supplication,  with 
thanksgiving  let  your  requests  be  made 
known  unto  God."  It  does  just  what 
we  should  expect  a  true  system  would 
do.  It  continues,  and  makes  provision 
for  ouD  discipline  on  the  side  of  the  affec- 
tions. It  enlarges  the  sphere  of  that 
discipline  and  brings  it  out  into  grander 
proportions.  It  says,  "  Our  Father  which 
art  in  heaven."  That  is  enough.  We 
are  not  now  turned  over  to  immutable 
and  unsympathizing  law.  We  have  a 
Father  in  heaven.     While  one  part  of  our 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE,  25 


nature  is  trained  up  and  permanently 
provided  for,  the  other  is  not  left  to 
pine  and  wither  in  hopeless  emaciation. 
Once  more,  if  the  man  of  science  says 
that,  not  so  says  the  broader-minded  phil- 
osopher, who  comprehends  all  the  aspects 
and  needs  of  our  manifold  humanity. 
The  spirit  of  a  true  philosophy,  its  very 
beginning,  as  is  well  known,  is  a  child- 
like spirit.  It  is  also  comprehensive, 
looking  on  all  sides.  The  true  philos- 
opher combines  in  himself  the  phil- 
osopher and  the  child — the  breadth  of 
the  one  and  the  docility  of  the  other. 
That  aspect  of  life  and  form  of  culture, 
therefore,  which  belongs '  to  science  he 
does  not  neglect.  He  gives  it  its  place. 
Looking  at  the  constitution  and  the 
laws  of  nature,  its  balancings  and  adjust- 
ments,   its    extent    and    its    ongoing,    the 


26  PRAYER,    AND 

philosopher  that  is  in  him,  and  that  he 
is,  says  intelHgently,  ''  Great  and  marvel- 
ous are  thy  works,  Lord  God  Almighty." 
Looking  at  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
the  moral  world,  more  marvelous  still,  and 
at  God's  dealings  with  him  in  that,  the 
child  that  is  in  him  and  that  he  is,  says, 
'•''  Just  and  true  are  Thy  ways,  thou  King 
of  Saints."  And  so  the  circle  is  com- 
plete. Trained  under  law  to  work,  and 
under  parents  to  ask,  all  the  wants  of 
our  nature  are  met ;  and  there  is  pro- 
vision for  their  being  met  while  God 
remains  a  F'ather,  and  His  universe 
stands. 

'  Thus  do  we  reach  the  great  positive 
point  that  I  wished  to  make.  It  is,  that 
as  our  training  up  to  manhood  is  under 
persons  by  asking,  and  under  law  by 
working,   so  the   full  growth   and    perfec- 


THE    P  PAYER     GAUGE. 


27 


tion   of  our  nature  require  that  it  should  m 
continue    to    be.      This    I    fully    believe ;( 
and   I   cannot   express   my    sense    of  the 
unwisdom  of  mere    scientists    who    place  7 
themselves   under  the  training    of   imper- 
sonal law  to  the  exclusion  of  that  higher 
and     better     training     which     is     under/ 
personality. 

I  have  now  presented  the  ground  on 
which,  as  I  suppose,  we  may  consistent- 
ly pray ;  and  not  for  spiritual  blessings 
only,  for  I  seek  no  shelter  under  them, 
but  also  for  temporal  blessings — for  re- 
lief from  sickness,  and  for  rain.  ^The 
question,  as  I  said,  turns  upon  the  re- 
lation of  the  power  of  will  to  the  laws 
of  nature.  If  that  relation  be  what  I 
have  stated,  I  see  no  difficulty  about  it. 
As  I  have  stated  in  the  chapter  on 
prayer    in   *'  The    Law    of    Love,"    it    is 


f 


PRAYER,    AND 


Oclearly    competent    to    any  will,   by  what 
the    Duke    of    Argyle    calls     ''  a    variable 
/combination     of     invariable     forces,"     to 
change    the    order  of  events  without  de- 
/  ranging    or    in  any  way    interfering    with 
the  order  of  nature.      Man  can  do    it ;     I 
jean    do  it;    you    can    do   it;    it    is  repre- 
jsented  in  the    Scriptures  that   angels  can 
1  do  it ;    and  yet   we    are    called    upon    to 
J    believe    that  God    cannot    do     it.      Prof. 
^  Tyndall,    while    repelling    the    charge    of 
/  denying      that     God     can     answer     such 
^    prayers    at    all,    yet    does   deny  that    he 
can  answer  them  without  a  miracle.     He 
says  expressly,  ''  that   without  a   disturb- 
ance  of  natural    law    quite    as    serious    as 
the    stoppage    of  an  eclipse,   or  the    roll- 
ing   of   the    St.    Lawrence   up    the    Falls 
of   Niagara,    no  act    of    humiliation,  indi- 
vidual or  national,  could  call  one  shower 


T  n  E     r  R  AY  ER     GA  U  G  E. 


29 


from  heaven,  or  deflect  toward  us  a 
single  beam    of  the  sun."  "^ 

We  now  proceed,  as  w^as  proposed, 
to  look  at  the  special  difficulties  made 
prominent  at  the  present  time. 

In  doing  this,  as  my  invitation  refer- 
red particularly  to  the  views  of  Prof. 
Tyndall,  I  shall  be  expected  to  notice 
them.  And  in  looking  into  those  views 
we  are  led,  first,  to  inquire  how  far  the 
professor  is  consistent  with  himself.  In 
his  latest  communication  on  the  subject 
he  says :  ''  The  theory  that  the  system 
of  nature  is  under  the  control  of  a  being 
who  changes  phenomena  in  compliance 
with  the  prayers  of  men  is,  in  my  opin- 
ion, a  perfectly  legitimate  one.  "'  ^  '" 
It  is  a  matter  of  experience  that  an 
earthly  father,   who   is  at   the  same    time 

*  Fragments  of  Science,  1-39. 


30  PRAYER,    AND 

both  wise  and  tender,  listens  to  the  re- 
quests of  his  children  and,  if  they  do 
not  ask  amiss,  takes  pleasure  in  granting 
their  requests.  We  know  also  that  this 
compliance  extends  to  the  alteration, 
within  certain  limits,  of  the  current 
events  of  earth.  With  this  suggestion 
offered  by  experience,  it  is  no  departure 
from  scientific  method  to  place  behind 
natural  phenomena  a  Universal  Father 
who,  in  answer  to  the  prayers  of  his 
children,  alters  the  currents  of  those 
phenomena.  Thus  far  theology  and  sci- 
ence go  hand  in  hand."  Now  I  put  it 
to  you  whether  this  language  fairly  in- 
terpreted, interpreted  so  as  to  mean  any 
thing  at  all,  does  not  cover  the  whole 
ground  I  have  claimed.  According  to 
this  it  is  not  irrational,  not  even  un- 
scientific,  "  to   place  behind  natural    phe- 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE.  31 


nomena  a  Universal  Father,  who,  in 
answer  to  the  prayers  of  his  children, 
alters  the  currents  of  those  phenomena  " 
— phenomena,  observe,  not  what  passes 
within  the  mind,  but  physical  events.  I 
ask  nothing  more,  but  I  do  ask  on 
what  ground  he,  as  a  philosopher,  can 
say  this  and  at  the  same  time  deny, 
as  he  does  in  this  same  connection, 
that  phenomena  are  thus  changed  ? 
Has  he  applied  any  test?  He  does 
not  claim  that  he  has.  On  what 
ground  does  he  say  here  that  God  can 
change  the  currents  of  phenomena,  as 
an  earthly  father  can,  in  answer  to 
prayer,  and  say  elsewhere  that  he  can 
do  it  only  by  doing  what  is  equivalent 
to  ''  the  rolling  of  the  St.  Lawrence  up 
the  Falls  of  Niagara "  ?  That  question 
I  cannot    answer. 


32  PRAYER,     AND 

But  leaving  the  point  of  consistency 
as  of  little  moment,  we  turn  to  his 
denial  of  the  fact  of  physical  changes 
through  prayer.  And  here,  that  I  may 
not  misrepresent  him,  I  will  state 
the  case  at  length  as  he  gives  it.  "  The 
bone  of  contention,"  he  says,  ''  is  iJie 
physical  value  of  prayer.  It  is  not  my 
wish  to  excite  surprise,  much  less  to 
draw  forth  protest  by  the  employment 
of  this  phrase.  I  would  simply  ask  any 
intelligent  person  to  look  the  problem 
honestly  and  steadily  in  the  face,  and 
then  to  say  whether,  in  the  estimation 
of  the  great  body  of  those  who  sin- 
cerely resort  to  it,  prayer  does  not,  at 
all  events,  upon  special  occasions,  invoke 
a  power  which  checks  and  augments 
the  descent  of  rain,  which  changes  the 
force    and    direction    of  winds,   which   af- 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE.  33 


fccts  the  growth  of  corn,  and  the 
health  of  men  and  cattle — a  power,  in 
short,  which,  when  appealed  to  under 
pressing  circumstances,  produces  the  pre- 
cise effects  caused  by  physical  energy  in 
the  ordinary  course  of  things.  To  any 
person  who  deals  sincerely  with  the  sub- 
ject, and  refuses  to  blur  his  moral  vis- 
ion by  intellectual  subtleties  " — I  should 
like  to  know  what  moral  vision  has  to 
do  with  it — ''  this,  I  think,  will  appear 
a  true  statement  of  the  case.  It  is 
under  this  aspect  alone  that  the  scien- 
tific student,  so  far  as  I  represent  him, 
has  any  wish  to  meddle  with  prayer. 
Forced  upon  his  attention  as  a  form 
of  physical  energy,  or  as  the  equivalent 
of  such  energy,  he  claims  the  right  of 
subjecting  it  to  those  methods  of  ex- 
amination   from    which    all     our     present 


24  PRAYER,     AND 


knowledge    of  the    physical     universe    is 
derived." 

This  is  defiantly,  and  I  doubt  not, 
sincerely  put,  but  I  hope  to  show  you 
that  it  involves  an  entire  misapprehension, 
and  therefore  misrepresentation  of  the 
case.  For  what,  I  ask,  does  he  mean 
by  speaking  of  prayer  as  "  a  physical 
energy,  or  an  equivalent  of  that  energy"? 
Let  me  illustrate  :  a  man  comes  to  me, 
and,  to  take  examples  given  by  himself, 
asks  me  to  make  his  corn  grow.  I  say 
to  him,  I  will,  and  I  sprinkle  over  it  a 
certain  fine  powder  called  plaster,  and,  by 
immutable  law,  the  plaster  draws  the  am- 
monia from  the  atmosphere,  and  he  gets 
two  bushels  where  he  would  have  got  one. 
Again  he  asks  me  to  change  the  force 
and  direction  of  the  wind.  I  say  I 
will,    and    I    set    fire    to   Troy,    and    raise 


THE    P  PAYER     GAUGE.  35 


a  breeze  directly,  and  the  wind  comes 
rushing  in  from  all  directions.  And  what 
I  do  here  is  far-reaching.  Not  only  do 
I  change  the  relative  position,  but,  accord- 
ing to  the  physicist,  I  change  the  actual 
position  of  every  particle  of  the  ocean 
of  atmosphere  that  surrounds  this  globe. 
For  aught  I  know,  I  may  cause  it  to 
rain  in  China.  At  any  rate  it  only  needs 
that  Troy  should  be  large  enough,  and 
I  should  cause  it  to  rain  here.  Did  the 
man  then,  in  appealing  to  me,  appeal  to 
any  form  of  physical  energy,  or  to  any 
equivalent  of  that  energy  ?  No,  he 
appealed  to  intelligence  and  will,  to  a 
person  who  might  or  might  not,  as  we 
should  choose,  turn  that  energy  in  the 
direction  desired.  That  is  all  there  is  to 
it.  There  is  no  appeal  to  any  physical 
energy,    or  any   thing  like  it.     The     pro- 


36  PRAYER,    AND 

fessor  seems  to  think  that  reh'gious  per- 
sons suppose  that  prayer  can  be  applied 
to  corn  in  some  such  way  as  plaster 
can.  No,  they  only  suppose  that  there 
may  be  more  ways  than  one  of  getting 
down  the  ammonia,  and  that  ''  the  uni- 
versal Father,"  to  use  his  own  words, 
''  can  change  phenomena  in  compliance 
with  the  prayers  of  men,"  and  without 
a  miracle,   quite  as  easily  as    man   can. 

This  failure  on  the  part  of  Prof.  Tyn- 
dall  to  apprehend  the  question  rightly, 
and  still  more  his  failure  to  find  the 
distinction  between  the  supernatural  and 
the  miraculous,  sufficiently  account  for  the 
difficulty  he  finds  in  connecting  prayer  in 
any  way  with  physical  results.  He  could 
not  admit  a  miracle  ;  he  ought  not.  He 
could  not  see  how  such  results  could 
come  without    that.     That    he     failed    to 


rilE    PRAYER     GAUGE. 


37 


draw  the  line  between  the  supernatural 
and  the  miraculous  should  hardly  be  set 
down  to  his  discredit,  since  theologians 
are   not   agreed   about   it. 

We  now  pass  to  the  next  point,  and 
that  is  the  prayer  gauge,  as  it  has  been 
called,  or  the  scientific  test  of  the  value 
of  prayer.  In  respect  to  this,  Prof. 
Tyndall  agrees  with  his  friend  who  pro- 
posed it,  and  complains  that  ''  it  seems 
impossible  to  propose  a  verification  of 
their  theory  which  does  not  arouse  resent- 
ment m  theological  minds."  But  it  is 
just  at  this  point  that  Prof.  Tyndall, 
together  Avith  his  friend,  shows  most 
fully  that  he  fails  to  comprehend  the  ele- 
ments with  which  he  is  dealing.  Such 
a  proposal  could  not  be  iTiade  by  any 
one  comprehending  those  elements,  be- 
cause,   in    its    very    nature,     the    test    is 


38 


PRAYER,    AND 


not  applicable  to    the   thing  to  be  tested 
by  it.     Let    me    illustrate    again.      Some 
discourses     are    weighty,     and    some   are 
heavy,    but   you  would  not  think  of  test- 
ing   either   the   weight    or   the   heaviness 
by   a  pair   of  scales.      We    hear   of  great 
thoughts,   but    no     one    would   think    of 
measuring  them  by  a  square  and  compass.  * 
No    one   would    think    of    selling    wheat 
by  the  yard.     Just  as   preposterous   is    it 
to  think   of  a  scientific    test  of  the  value 
of  prayer   in    any  of  its  forms.     A  scien- 
tific test  implies    necessity,    and   absolute 
uniformity.     Without   these    it   would  not 
be  a  scientific    test.     But   these  can  have 
no  application    to    any   thing   into    which 
free-will    comes,    as    it    always    does   and 
must,      into     answers    to    prayer.      They 
belong    to   different    regions,   and    if    the 
subject    were     not    a    serious     one,    the 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE. 


39 


attempt  to  transfer  the  tests  fitted  to  one 
over  into  the  other  would  be  simply  ludi- 
crous.    Without  uniformity  and  necessity 
there    can    be     no    scientific    test.     With 
these    there    can    be    no    spiritual   world, 
no  choice,  no  asking  even,  and  no    room 
for   gratitude    and    love.     All    that   need 
be  said  is  that  the  test  proposed  has  no 
relation  to  the  conditions  of  the  problem. 
The  value    of    prayer   can   be   tested    by 
us    just    as    the   value    of    asking   can  be 
tested  by  children,  and   in  no  other  way. 
It    may   also  be   said,  as   it    has  been, 
that  the  application  of  the  proposed  test 
is    impossible.     It    is    so    clearly   so    that 
the    proposal   of    it  seems   like    mere   tri- 
fling.    Who    can    so    isolate    any   set    of 
human  beings  from  their  Maker  and  from 
human    sympathy  as   to   be   sure  that  no 
prayer   shall   go  up    from    themselves,    or 


40  PRAYER,     AND 

from  others,  that  God  will  accept?  The 
application  of  the  test  is  as  impossible 
as  the  test  itself  is  inapplicable.  But 
for  the  indorsement  of  Prof.  Tyndall,  the 
proposal  of  such  a  test  would  probably 
have  been  attributed  to  a  wag  with  a  long 
face,  and  have  excited  no  serious  notice. 
But  it  is  not  by  science  alone  that 
Prof.  Tyndall  would  disprove  any  connec- 
tion between  prayer  and  physical  results, 
but  also  by  that  sa)nng  of  our  Saviour 
that  God  "  maketh  his  sun  to  shine  on 
the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth 
his  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust." 
Can  the  professor  really  believe  that  in 
this  passage  our  Saviour  means  to  teach 
a  doctrine  of  prayej-  identical  with  his 
own  ?  So  it  would  seem.  But  the  pas- 
sage has  nothing  to  do  with  prayer,  and 
in    quoting  it   he    simply    makes    a    false 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE. 


41 


issue,  evidently  without  intending  it,  by 
confounding  character  with  asking,  as  a 
means  of  good.  Christ  says  that  God 
does  not  give  certain  things  on  the 
ground  of  character.  Prof.  Tyndall  says, 
and  claims  that  Christ  says,  that  he  does 
not  give  them  on  the  ground  of  asking, 
which  is  a  wholly  different  thing.  How 
this  is  we  may  see  by  what  Christ  him- 
self did.  He  turned  none  away.  He 
wrought  miracles  for  the  evil  and  the 
good  equally,  just  as  God  makes  his 
sun  to  shine  ;  but  with  scarcely  an  ex- 
ception, he  wrought  them  only  for  those 
who  asked.  And  may  not  God,  in  the 
same  way,  hear  the  prayers  of  those 
who  come  to  Him  for  special  favors — 
really  come  whether  they  are  good  or 
evil?  If  not,  it  is  sad  for  us.  That  he 
will    is  just    what    Christ    taught,    if    we 


42 


PRAYER,    AND 


look  at  his  teachings  as  a  whole.  In 
the  same  discourse,  comparing  God  to 
an  earthly  father,  he  said,  and  without 
restriction,  '"'Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given 
you."  He  said  that  God  would  give 
''good  things  to  them  that  ask  hiiji." 
He  taught  us,  in  the  Lord's  prayer,  to 
pray  for  daily  bread,  and  that  we  might 
be  delivered  from  evil,  both  of  which 
imply  interposition  in  regard  to  physical 
events.  Fairly  interpreted,  the  whole 
teachings,  as  well  as  the  examples  of 
Christ,  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
view   in   question. 

There  is  one  point  more.  Both  Prof. 
Tyndall  and  his  friend  seem  anxious  to' 
know  what  men  may  pray  for,  and 
what  not.  They  are  troubled  at  the 
spectacles  of  weakness  and  folly  that 
are  seen    in    human     prayer,     and     talk 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE.  43 


about  a  ''  purification  " — a  narrowing  of 
the  field  of  prayer  as  we  come  to  ap- 
prehend more  fully  the  universality  and 
the  immutability  of  law.  It  is  doubtless 
true  that  prayer  is  modified  as  men 
become  better  informed.  Why?  Not 
from  any  apprehended  incompatibility 
of  law  with  prayer,  but  for  the  same 
reason  that  a  well-informed  child  does 
not  ask  for  the  moon  as  a  plaything.  If 
v-'hat  has  been  said  be  correct,  there  is 
nothing  in  reason  or  in  science  to  pre- 
vent our  taking  the  Bible  as  our  guide 
in  this.  That  opens  a  w^ide  domain  to 
prayer ;  it  makes  it  the  breath  of 
Christian  life.  It  says,  as  I  have  said 
before,  ''In  every  thing,  by  prayer  and 
supplication  ;  "  siLpplication,  you  see — ask^ 
ing — the  apostle  w^as  not,  as  some 
seem    to  be    now,   afraid    of  that,  as  if  it 


44  PRAYER,     AND 

were  less  disinterested  and  dignified  than 
worship — *' in  every  thing  by  prayer  and 
suppHcation,  with  thanksgiving,  let  your 
requests  be  made  known  unto  God." 
But,  doing  this,  it  guards  against  any 
thing  fanatical,  or  foolish,  or  weak,  by 
inculcating  the  spirit  of  children.  It  is 
easy,  indeed,  to  bring  examples  of  weak- 
ness and  folly  in  connection  with  prayer, 
and  to  hold  them  up  to  ridicule  or  to 
pity.  Such  examples  there  have  always 
been,  and  not  only  of  these,  but  of  hy- 
pocrisy and  wickedness.  There  were 
such  in  our  Saviour's  time,  and  he  re- 
buked them.  There  are  such  now, 
especially  in  countries  where  the  Bible 
is  not  known,  or  is  withheld  from  the 
people.  But  give  a  man  the  Bible  and 
the  spirit  of  a  child,  and  there  is  no 
danger  that  he  will  go  far  amiss  in 
his   petitionSo 


THE     r  R  A  I '  E  R     GAUGE. 


45 


To  these  there  will  be  two  limitations. 
First.  Except  under  special  direction, 
such  a  man  could  not  ask  God  for  a  mir- 
acle, for  the  same  reason  that  a  child 
could  not  ask  his  father  to  burn  the 
house  down.  The  regular  order  of  nature 
is  the  house  we  live  in.  It  could  not 
be  disturbed  by  frequent  miracles,  and 
be  fit    for  the  training  of  rational  beings. 

Second.  Neither  could  he  ask  for 
any  thing,  under  the  laws  of  nature, 
that  would  contravene  the  object  of 
those  laws.  Whatever  we  can  do  for 
ourselves  under  those  laws  God  expects 
us  to  do  ;  it  is  for  our  own  good  that 
we  should  do  it.  We  were  put  under 
them  that  we  might  do  it  ;  it  is  pre- 
cisely here  as  with  the  parent  and  child. 
Is  the  child  cold  ?  Let  him  get  up  and 
go  to  the  fire.  If  he  will  not  do  that, 
let   him    suffer  ;  and,  beg  as  he  may,  the 


^6  PRAYER,    AND 

wise  parent  will  let  him  suffer,  and,  per- 
haps, punish  him  too,  before  he  will  take 
him  up  and  carry  him.  Let  the  man  do 
what  he  can  under  natural  law.  Recog- 
nizing God  in  that,  his  work  will  be 
prayer.  Let  him  do  what  he  can  and 
then  pray,  and  God  will  hear  him.  "  God 
helps  those  who  help  themselves,"  but 
we  cannot  expect  him  to  do  any  thing 
that  would  encourage  needless  ignorance, 
or  shiftlessness,  or  inefficiency.  All  other 
things  such  a  man  might  ask,  but  he 
would  ask  for  nothing  absolutely  except 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  His  fruits.  Other 
things  he  would  ask  in  subserviency  to 
the  will  of  his  Heavenly  Father.  And 
such  a  man  would  have,  not  only  the 
precepts  of  the  Bible  for  his  guide,  and 
the  example  of  good  men,  but  also  the 
example  of  Him  who  prayed  so  earnestly 
that    '■''  His    sweat  was   as   it  were   great 


THE    PRAYER     GAUGE. 


47 


drops  of  blood  falling  to  the  ground," 
and  at  the  same  time  with  a  submission 
so  absolute  as  to  say,  ''  Nevertheless,  not 
my  will  but  thine  be  done."  Under  such 
guidance,  together  with  the  promised  aid 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  may  hope  that 
prayer  will  be  as  free  from  imperfection 
as  human  infirmity  will  permit  any  thing 
to   be. 

I  have  thus  taken  up,  point  by 
point,  the  difficulties  presented  by  Prof. 
Tyndall,  and  as  he  presented  them.  The 
result  I  leave  with  you.  I  have  no  fear 
of  science.  I  believe  in  it  and  welcome 
it.  I  have  no  fear  of  immutable  law. 
Rightly  understood — understood  so  that 
I  can  control  it  and  turn  it  to  my  pur- 
pose— I  believe  in  and  welcome  that  ; 
but  I  do  not  believe  in  that  conception 
of  physical  law  that  puts  it  above  God, 
or  that  makes  it,  in  any  way,  other  than 


48  PRAY-EE. 


an  instrument  flexible  in  his  hands.  I 
do  not  believe  in  any  mode  of  conceiv- 
ing, as  is  constantly  done,  of  the  attri- 
butes of  God  in  such  a  way  that  we 
give  infinity  in  one  direction  only  to 
impose  Hmits  in  another.  This  is  the 
mistake  of  pantheism.  Especially  do  I 
not  believe  in  any  mode  of  conceiv- 
ing of  his  natural  attributes,  as  his 
greatness  and  his  immutabiHty,  in  such 
a  way  as  to  impose  limits  upon  those 
attributes  of  a  Father  by  which  He  can 
hear  the  cry  of  his  children,  and  enter 
with  the  fullest  sympathy  into  all  their 
wants,  and  supply  them.  **  Behold  the 
fowls  of  the  air ;  for  they  sow  not, 
neither  do  they  reap  nor  gather  into 
barns,  yet  your  Heavenly  Father  feedeth 
them.  Are  ye  not  much  better  than 
they?" 


